Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  May 20, 2015 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with ian bremmer, his book is superpower, three choices for america's role in the world. >> i don't believe we are in a corner, i don't believe that america has only one path and i get a little unnerved when you have people out there in political leaders out there saying this is the only thing we must do, is be strong or give up. i think the world's only superpower, no one else is even close with the ability to project the kind of coordinated military, economic, diplomatic, technological and soft cultural power that america has and so i do think we have real options and i lay out the three that i think are most credible. >> rose: we conclude this evening with al huntington story this time with barbara comstock and debbie dingell. i think where people are used to having, you know, a lot of balls in the air, i think we have to find answers.
12:01 pm
i think we are thrust into situations where, you know, you just can't -- take strong lines in the sand. we have to solve problems and i think that is that we tend to do. >> rose: bremmer, hunt comstock and dingell when we continue. funding for charlie rose >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city this is charlie rose. >> rose: ian bremer is here, she the founder and president of the political risk consulting
12:02 pm
firm eurasia group his new book is called superpower, three choices for america's role in the world, i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> superpower, three choices for america's role in the world, lots of people thinking, including you and thinking, well where america goes from here. i read from you, many countries including china russia, the gulf arab leaders, ini can't brazil turkey and others have proven they can reject u.s. leadership where it isn't useful for them and extend their influence within their own region, yet governments in all of these countries now face complex domestic challenges leaving them unwilling and unable to offer a real alternative to that leadership. the u.s. dominated post cold world order has come to an end and live in a world where no single power or alliance of powers can offer consistent global leadership. no one knows what comes next. so at that this is what this book is about. >> it is. >> what comes next? >> what comes next? who are the
12:03 pm
americans, what do we stand for? i was really clear in the soviet period, it wasn't as clear for the last quarter century but it didn't bother us so much but we come in the 2016 and the presidential elections and, you know it is very clear that people are unnerved by the world we live in and by america's role in it. you look at the headlines just in the past counsel of week, the gulf summit we had where we invite instead of our key allies from the region and four of them don't show up to meet with obama. >> rose: that is not fair, they showed up, i mean, to have -- >> the crown prince and the deputy crown prince from saudi arabia are pretty impressive and powerful people perhaps as much involved in execution of policy as anyone in in that country. >> i would argue when the president invites you and the king says she coming and a week beforehand the king says actually i am not coming, that is an extraordinary breach of protocol. >> rose: would you then suggest that was clearly on the part of that king, with no other reason than to suggest a
12:04 pm
difference with the administration? >> without president obama. >> it is not because he had other things to do? it is not because. >> yeah -- >> rose:. >> if the king doesn't show up to menino in riyadh and he sends the crown prince i feel pretty good about that. you may feel good about that. you would be a litter -- but still, obama is not you and me right? i mean when netanyahu comes after the president says don't, more importantly when the brits, our special relationship, right, when they say, actually we don't care if you don't like , we are going to join and the other members of the china led asian infrastructure bank and the america says you are paneled doarg the chinese. the fact is that americans have not seen this kind of behavior from our allies in recent days, and have not seen the chinese and the russians as they are this week doing military exercises together in the mediterranean.
12:05 pm
they have not seen the turks and nato allies say we will buy our weapons from china. they haven't seven the dutch say we are going to use internet security help from a chinese firm and so suddenly there is a lot of people saying that america looks pretty good, our economy looks pretty good, but u.s. foreign policy nuns is clearly in decline. >> rose: who are we, what do we stand for? that's really what i with a tonight get at here. >> rose: you say three ways we can go. >> i do. >> rose: what are they? >> i think that you know, i don't believe we are in a corner. i don't believe that america only has one path, and i get a little unnerved when you have people out there in political leaders out there saying this is the only thing we must do. we have to be strong or we have to give up. i think that, you know, the world's only superpower, no one is even close in terms of the ability to project the kind of coordinated military, economic, diplomatic, technological and soft cultural power that america has, and so i do think we have real options and i lay out the three that i think are most
12:06 pm
critical. in unone indispensable america, and indispensable america says we know our allies are not as aligned and maybe a little weaker than we used to be and we know the global environment is more challenging, and we know that we don't even want to be the world's policeman like we used to but if we don't play a leadership role globally, no one else is going going to. furthermore it is going the lead to so much more conflict that we will ultimately end up battering our shores too. >> rose: does not nature abhor a vacuum? >> nature clearly abhors a vacuum. >> rose: so if we don't do it -- if we say everybody else is too weak to do it or the time being no one is prepared to do it? >> well, clearly for the time being and i would say for the foreseeable future no one is going to do it globally if there are a lot of people that will do it locally but the problem is, as you know, some of those people that will do it locally hate the other people that will do it locally. and so it threes a lot more conflict. i mean you look at yemen and the americans playing no role in yemen we see what is happening.
12:07 pm
>> rose: let's assume it is not i indispensable america, what else? >> the next is money ball america and billy beane the oakland a's nonsentimental beautifully written, beautifully written, nonsentimental and says look you can talk as much as you want about promoting democracy all over the world and human rights like the indispensable people want but there are a lot of countries that don't want it and won't take it. you take the chinese you have to do human rights china is going to respond not so well to that you tell the russian you have to be a democracy and in the middle east, even if you have some influence and starts to happen it doesn't happen the way you want. so money ball really says, stop stop with all of the values and instead run the country more like a company. look at where you are actually going to get return on your investment. i think like a real pivot to asia, asia is where the allies want us and the largest economies in the world. >> rose: europe and asia -- >> well no, our asian allies really want -- our european al highs are pretty divided right
12:08 pm
now on what they want, right? you are giving me a hard time. >> rose: no, i am trying to help you clarify. >> so, you know, in that case, you pivot but pivoting applies wow take one foot and -- it means we don't do the middle east the way we used to and don't focus as much on iraq and syria because they are not as directly threatening, we don't need the energy we, the way we used, to money ball means making tough decisions. and the third way is independent america, and independent america really says look all of this stuff sounds really nice but if you are not prepared to actually follow through, if you not going to really write the checks then is much better for our lies, for our adversaries and r ourselves to come clean and transparent about these ings now. d say, we are going to play a ch smaller role globally, we e going to not demand respect saying you have got to do x, and z, we are going to command espect by actually leading by ample.
12:09 pm
and that means not only investing more at home but physical means trying to live much more up to the american values we project so things like immigration, 4 million refugees from syria, we have accepted 355. so like the statue of liberty doesn't exist. >> rose: the third option independent america seems closer to what the obama administration or the president has articulated, isn't it? >> i don't think so. i think that the president has articulated all three of these over the past years in different times and i think he confuse add lot of people. i think there has not been -- i think obama had some very good tactical foreign policies and some very bad foreign policies, you and i discussed many of them. wrong there has been a coherent strategy. and certainly if there has been one, the it has not been articulated sufficiently well any of our allies understand it. because when we talk to foreign ministers from canada to japan people say what the heck are you guys doing? so i would, for example, on russia i don't think russia has been an independent policy. i think russia has been the
12:10 pm
americans saying we will punish you and isolate you and you get get uh, out of ukraine or it is going to be tough. we haven't punished the chinese for doing more business with the russia, you can't even try and you could argue it would be foolhardy but we have been a lot tougher than a lot of the europeans have been. we punished putin. i guess by default we have punished the ukrainian people into is it working punishing putin? >> it is not working for us. >> rose: we want them to change -- >> yes, we want them to change. they are not changing. no, i think -- >> rose: does that make us look weak? >> of course it does, syria makes us look even weaker and russia makes us look weak, when we set red lines and say we are committed to do something or else and putin over the last 15 plus months has consistently accepted else, and not only that but when every emerging market in the world says we are going to do more business with russia, we have said we are going to isolate the russians, you know, when i think about
12:11 pm
isolation, you know, i don't see the conjugal visits with the chinese and the turks and the indians and everyone else that have been going. they are going much more business with them and our response to that has been, we are going to isolate you. that's not credible. and meanwhile putin of course has not in any way acted as if he is prepared to accept the nine success agreement mminsk agreement, the last policy you liked was george h.w. bush? >> in terms of a. >> rose:. >> global strategy i think yes. i would say that is true, in terms of the last time we saw a president who really has a consistent and coherent global foreign policy view. i do think that when hillary clinton was secretary of state she actually articulated strategy, reasonably well, unfortunately -- >> was that her strategy or was that barack obama's strategy? >> well, i think it was although if you hear from her as a candidate recently you might be forgiven to think it wasn't. i mean, as a candidate, as secretary of state she was money
12:12 pm
ball. as secretary of state she said, you don't criticize -- >> rose: she was a hawk too. >> i don't think so. >> rose: i do. >> i mean, you could say she was more of a hawk than we have right now, but with her role on libya was, you know -- >> rose: go in there. >> was go in there. >> rose: go in there -- >> with the most limited force possible, make the allies do much more. >> rose: no caveat -- >> >> rose: who recommended doing a lot more than hillary clinton? >> the russia reset. >> rose: well no let's stay with libya for a second. i mean the russians got upset because of libya. >> who are doing more in libya? the french. >> rose: the french were but who was saying do a lot more than the administration is prepared to do? >> you are right. within the obama administration, at the time. >> rose: right. >> hillary was hawkish. >> rose: more so and in fact, bob gates was here last night ansaid, said so. >> said so, yes. i saw him this morning. said so. but if you compare her to george w. bush you would not call her
12:13 pm
hawkish. i mean i am just looking at the broad range but he think when you look -- when you look at hillary, and you look at hillary and you compare -- you look at the pivot to asia, right, and you look at economic statecraft and you look at saying i am not going to preach human right to these people because they are bankers and it doesn't really work and you look at the effort to engage in a russia reset and look at her unwillingness. >> rose:. >> it went badly, look i am not suggesting every policy she put in place worked. i am suggesting there was the beginnings of a -- >> rose: money ball strategy. >> money ball strategy. interest any now she is a candidate, trance pacific partnership which was hers she is like i am not sure i am in favor of that. and i am not sure that was really me. >> rose: if we don't do the trance pacific partnership, what are the people all around the world going to think? will they think we are shutting -- that we just are not aware of the reality of trade-in the world? >> they will think that the
12:14 pm
incompetence and immobility of our political system in washington .. and the weakness of our president will requires them to -- >> rose: that is true -- >> he couldn't get the single biggest piece of foreign policy that he has been working on in the administration has been working on arguably for the entire six years of hair first two terms that he continue do that but the japanese, the world's third largest economy that is their singular foreign policy issue right now is really bet this done. the american can't make good on that -- >> rose: it reminds me of two things. one, in the last week -- by the way i think it is going to happen and get done. i think the chinese made a mistake. they pushed on the infrastructure bank before ttp and as much as the republicans hate obama they hate china more, and so strategically, i think the republicans awe all get on board with ttp and this gets done, it is going to be tight though. not as many as you you would like to see. >> rose: because of the party -- >> because of the concerns on a
12:15 pm
labor, absolutely. >> are they legitimate? >> of course, they are, i mean upon the agricultural side we will do pine, if you ask me why big companies like tpp on the u.s. it is precisely because a lot of those jobs aren't in the u.s. but they will be able to, sort of import it to the u.s. more easily from other countries, i don't think that is a job -- >> rose: a proposition a certain level of labor practices at the same time having trade. >> labor is broken for lots of reasons, automation is a big part of it, globalization is a big part of it, but the tpp is not just about economics, it is about strategy, it is about the chinese have a global strategy they are the only country in the world with a global strategy. we don't have one. they are spending over a trillion-dollar to align countries and when i see paul krugman, when i see elizabeth warren and others write about tpp surely from an economic lens it is as if they never have done political classes in your life. you have to focus on the strategic side. >> rose: do the majority of people believe george osborne is right in terms of the economic policy, the austerity that he
12:16 pm
brought to great britain, or to the, or do the majority of people believe that paul krugman is right saying that really had nothing to do with it? >> i think there is an ideological divide between the united states and europe generally speaking where we are much more willing to plow it down and spend money and. >> rose: infrastructure dack -- >> and they are not, they are in a place where -- they do have a much bigger problem with the middle class and more -- >> rose: social inequality and -- >> yes. >> and economic inequality. this is what is interesting about this book to me among many things. give me your assessment of bill clinton's foreign policy. >> i think it was in some ways as nonstrategic and react if the as we see from his successors. i think that bill clinton inherited. >> rose: soviet union has collapsed. >> we have won and so you don't actually need to have a global strategy, you know? it is much
12:17 pm
more a question of taking advantage of being the world's great power and people come to you. >> rose: what happened? what could we have done? because many people look at that now as a crucial period between when he became president in 1992, you know the berlin wall fell what, in 1989. >> 89, yes. >> rose: so between that time and in terms of -- >> -- russia occurred under his administration. you remember that. russia sounds quaint to losing russia today, but that was the time. >> rose: that we could have done what? >> well. >> rose: made them not feel like they had to get on their knees and bow? >> i mean, engaging the russians, you know, in a real way where 0 you don't say one thing on one side of thes, your mouth and another thing on the other. so whether on nato enlargement or on missile defense or whether it is on the ba ak uh, behalf aku pipeline, i remember people in
12:18 pm
the clinton administration that says happiness is multiple pipelines and what they really meant is you have the russian pipeline but you need other pipelines. >> and people, uh russia said this is the backyard and they want to take the energy out of there and to the influence to go somewhere else they said the americans are playing the zero sum game while we are in channels. and, you know the unfortunate thing is the ability to work with the russians was a real opportunity, after the soviet union collapsed and today it is completely gone, it is completely gone. >> rose: because you think about this. the choices, rather than just those three, the way you have divided the three choices into -- let's go by and say what would be the best american foreign policy? -- >> sure. let's start with east asia china. >> china. so one thing i would say about china is i believe that the chinese are not trying to particularly threaten the americans militarily. they recognize that they do not have the ability to compete
12:19 pm
anywhere outside of their immediate backyard. and in their backyard they will occasionally shake the branches, but frankly if they get whacked back, unless it is on something like taiwan or hong kong which they consider to be animes stick issue they back off. the americans actually responded well. >> rose: an. >> america responded well to japan, japan and american relationship is much better than it was years ago. we said look this is part -- it is a key ally, we are going to treat the any contested territories as consistent with the u.s. the americans have the ability. >> rose: and we put it on the line. >> i think we did, not much but enough and i think on the south china sea issue, the americans now saying we are going to send more ships over there, that we are actually going to contest the chinese and in be building for example these artificial reefs that are going to create new facts on the ground or in the stay as we would. >> rose: how would we build the relation snip is what i am interesting in. >> you build -- >> rose: create confidence in the relationship? >> one thing. >> -- for each other.
12:20 pm
>> we don't have high level summitry. when it is clear the u.s.-china relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world and we don't intend the kind of time when reagan, bush bush, i mean true summitry with the soviets and we didn't like each other on all issues and we could get along on a few that's the kind of effort that is required to actually get the americans and the chinese to work on anything. and on areas where we really don't agree, we have to coordinate much more effectively with our allies so on fiber we can't do that by ourselves, we need the japanese in all of these conversations and multilateral support from the allies that are really the vulnerable there. >> rose: isn't that one of the things that barack obama has articulated in his foreign policy? >> we live in an age in which we must find multilateral solutions, and we must work with other nations, it is not just america can't go it alone. >> it is perceived as a weakness but he perceived that as a reality. >> i perceive that as a reality. i think allies perceive that as something he talks about but hasn't necessarily followed
12:21 pm
through on. >> rose: because he doesn't listen to them? >> he listens pretty well, he listens better than bush did, he thinks after he listens he does what he wanted to do in the first place again the tpp question could be undermined by congress, and allies in asia feel like he waited way too too long to make this a big deal and almost lost it and doesn't feel he is committed as he needs to be. so i think obama easing willingness to do multilateral where our tools for foreign policy influence are themselves becoming more unilateral, when you think about drone strikes or you think about cyber surveillance, or you think about, you know, sanctions or the use of the dollar as a stick, or the weapon station of finance i like to call it .. when you two after 9 billion and fines because they don't behave the way you want, many of the tools we used use to project our force are increasingly unilateral, and that -- that is not obama, it is just technology, but that does mitigate against, you know, sort of the desire to always engage
12:22 pm
multilateral thaws uts thoughts with allies. >> rose: sanctions have been multilateral. >> some have, some haven't. >> rose: against iran. >> against russia, it was multilateral, againstçó iran, succesti thusñiçy/myfarçó sanctions and if thiñi deal getsçó done, that will absolutely beñiñr a majorçó feather inñriññ obama's capw3 in lí those. many of theazñiñi has had have had, have been unilateral. >> rose: how about john kerry. >> heñr wasñud in=#eññi palestine forñiúmtnth r&ghtñiñi now, he isñi -- >>çó]o amount of time on the aaronian -- >> iñr think iran has been a winñi for him, iran has been a win for him, he absolutely has been in lockstep request the obama administration, he he has worked theñi bilateralñi re ineffective. >> rose: even though reason blue good relation ship >> witk >> it is okay not bad theyçó handed him a potato last week,
12:23 pm
that wasn't bad. i mean lab i don't have i think is the most capable foreign minister of a major country out there which doesn't help us, given he is against us in mostxd things. labarov,çó and, youçóçó know,. >> rose:.#e don't they come up with a treat treaties solution for syria then? if they are soñi good? >> the russians? they are not not that good. >> rose: i thought you said he was the most creative foreign minis >> for putin he is strong, and doing a lotñr of things putin wants him to do. his ability -- >> rose: what putin wants to do -- >> i would not wantñi to have that portfolio, that is a challenge. >> rose: so russia so china, we need more cooperation, we need to respect, vg need to be firm where we need to be firm, and if you had the president, and i hear you but we have done all of that, just look at the record, we have done all of that. >> like i say i mentioned high level summitry, we either join ourselves along with the brits and everyone else and the japanese so that we can say, yeah, it is multilateral and we
12:24 pm
are going to work to undermine it or work to steer it, weñr didn't do that and that was kind of a big mistake. you know, i think that frankly, i think that tpp gets done, if it gets done and the u.s. japan relationship is better panned the u.s. india relation snip is better the asia end up despite everyone saysñr the pivot is gone and no pivot to asia, asia ends up the part of the u.s. foqu foreign policy that is probably the most successful as a legacy for him. anyone really running it. >> rose: except if they get the iranian deal done. >> if yes if, for me that would be number 2 after the tpp but. >> rose: it would be number one. >> 40 percent of the world's gdp, yeah really aligning, it will matter theçó most long-term because iran is not a great deal, i mean if iran will definitely -- >> rose: a deal is not a great deal for the u.s.? >> no not a great deal for the u.s. >> rose: a deal with iran. >> a much better deal for iran. >> because? >> because i think you sign the
12:25 pm
deal, it is hard to implement the u.n. inspectors will not be as strong as we would like, the aaronians willçó cheat.s7 when they cheat theñi arbitration mechanism will be argued over, sanctions will erode the iranians will make more money and we will have unnerve and weakened relations with a lot of key allies in the region so it is not a great deal but given the alternatives i would still sign it. if i were there so i think it is a win, as the win because oil prices go down, that helps the u.s., it is a win becauseñi you get a lo÷i ofxd -- >> rose: hurts the russians. >> it hurts a lot of people, the russians, the saudis that ultimately we are not asñi al!ú-i= it also means that more investment comes into iran which probably honest them up overñi the long-term in ways that makes them more aligned with the west. an finally because i think long-term the united states wants to have a more balanced relationship between iran and saudi arabia, and i think that is multilateral -- >>ñi and theñ)háp)j=
12:26 pm
and that's whyñr the k the beginning didn't show up. >> rc34z6ó that wouldxd beñr the time to me, time to show up, to me. >> but -- >> rose: can't youñi expressçó ámp)hr' a lotçó cnñ different ways? i meançó my argument amount that itçó probably was pique but also an message but at the same time, there arexd a lot ofxd ways youñi canñrñi send a messageñi to somebody. >> if you are the king you think there are only añi ways to show pique. >> if you are putin you show putin by making you wait three hour. >> can't you get on the phone ansay mr. president problem with you and that'sxd why we have a problem with you. >>ñh obama, i am sure he told him. >> rose: iñi think this is all too much is made of -- >> i think the symbolism is important precisely because as you just mentioned the saudis unthat u.s.ñi relations are, the interest between these twoçó countries are actuallyçóñr splitting apart. >> rose: explain that that because that is veryñi important, because some fear that, they fear that we an it is just notñr the saudis but the sunni
12:27 pm
countries we are more about iran than anybody else because it has influence in their region as well. >> they should worry about it. >> rose: destabilizing in their region. >> not just things like yemen and iraq but even things like bahrain and -- >> rose: do they fear we are naive, we can't beñi countedñi that we will not -- anvó that we somehow believe that iranñi ci become a better nation? word of the dayñrñiñ)háoday is, ramadi. >> rose: oh, sure. absolutely. >> rose:. the shia militias helping on theñi ground, youçó have iran on the ground, the americans from the air and the saudisñr going oh, myçóçó god, this is açó serious problem. >> rose:. from tikrit where they abandonedçó tikritçó and now taken ramadi.)3 >>ñi yes.tjej in and kill a lot of people,ñi blow up a ljx ofñr things, and then they begin to think elsewhere can we solidify that and we are now in anbar province and doing well, we haveñi mosulçóçó
12:28 pm
andñr ramadi. >> we are not that far fromñiñi >> 70 kilometers,xdñiñi right. >>ñi atçó some point thisñi hasñi gotñi toñiñrçóñr i are, worry about a ñrçóxd caliphate, do you worry aboutñi anñiñciñiñr islamic state and you worry about it being with all of the oil and economicçó revenue and you have got @ -- it is like the nazis in world war ii, weñp$ave all of the part neshz and all of that we can to stopñiçó them. >> that is the -- >> yes. >> and ifñii they getçóñi power maybe whateverñi weapons of mass destruction areñrñiçó possible -- >> it is añrxd plausibleñi for isis andñi it should be arguedçó$ze isçó not the only argument. >> but who bleeft th >> iñiñi meanái rubio --q3 ahead. >>ñi and ynwñiçóñiñr know -- >> he has a hard time with that
12:29 pm
on iraq. i reallyñi do. and. >> you are basically saying, let7oo isis do whatever isis is going to do?"wf0>> we will goçó in thereñr and drop a few bombsñi and good luck? >>ñr well, iñi mean,. >> is thatñiñr it?c notçó prepared, what i heard today inñi washington, all day long, isçó number one, weçó mustñh isisñi number 2 we will have no boots on the ground and i have heard them from the same peoqne, i actually don't believe we can destroy isis without troops on the ground. >> rose: who on the playing field today can figureñi out4 toñçó makeñiñi this work. >> could you make this work and are we willing to put in the kinl %f -- >> rose: yes. >> yes, you can but kr willing, willing? the question isñi]imó not can united states deploy and makeñiçóçó a difference -- >> rose: because we have a president who is worried about sort of being -- he spent his presidency get understanding out of iraq an getting out of afghanistan. >> that's right. >> he had enough of that and doesn't want to get sucked back
12:30 pm
in as he presumes -- >> >> let me throw the exact opposite side of the argument here because we have people out there today that are saying, why do we care about ramadi? they are saying, you know we spent trillions of dollars, outs of americans dead the saudis, if the saudis and theñi emiratesñm the othersok are not prepared toçó actually really put their young boys and even girls, you know, in hkr than willing to telly americans, gatesñi will tell you thatçó too, he was upset at the saudis for being incredibly willing to send the americans in but weren't actually prepared to put -- >> if that is the case, you have got a hard argument to make. the fact is -- >> rose: whose argument would -- is that president obama's argument? >> i think it is barack obama's argument. >> they are not prepared to do it for them themselves we can't do it for them. >> >> so that isn't affecting us very much. the refugees can't
12:31 pm
swim to the u.s. that is not affecting us very much. we do have terrorist problems with isis. it is not zero but it is not what you are seeing in europe or turkey or jordan or lebanon or anyone else, so i mean there is an argument to be made at least when all of these people wrappa&c and they say weñi are nn someone has to push back and say, what are you going to do? >> rose: let'sñi think that through. weñe3k provide all the air support theyñi want, and they are moving andçóñia going to throw everything they can in terms of supporting inside a in -- (shia -- >> and suppose, suppose they do stop them, what is the consequences of iran stopping them and getting the majority credit for doing that? >> well, for america the consequences aren't so great. >> rose: what are they? >> for the region, the consequences are that the iranians are going to control
12:32 pm
effectively the iraqi government, that will not be tolerated by the kurds or by the sunnis. >> rose: will they spin off? >> i think iraq already doesn't work as a government, i mean i think effectively the kurds are independent. and it also means iran's influence and ability not only to make money but to have impact in asia that really matters. >> rose:. >> the saudis -- >> we are not just talking about iraq. the fact is that saudi arabia just a week ago changed their governors and got rid of a lot of the reformers, they are focused much more on security. and i think that stay challenge. >> rose: and maliki has all of his people up in arms about -- >> so you put all of that together, it is not clear how much the americans really want to bet on this part of the world -- are you pessimistic about america? >> no, i am pessimistic about the middle east across the board. the energy revolution and solar power and battery technology getting cheaper and everything else [talking at the same time] >> i say where are they going --
12:33 pm
>> rose: so america said to the middle east -- talking at same time ] >> i think the biggest challenge that the people support indispensable america will have is that you can do in this year, next career but if you look at the trends over the next five ten years -- the call on america to try to make the middle east stable [multiple parties speaking] >> minimize what you can try to do and give up on the middle east. >> hard -- multiple parties speaking at the same time ] >> rose: do a lot less. >> a lot less. >> rose: do what thexd pivot wasçó originallyçó t >> i absolutelyçó bel'ñ- resources on those parts ofç(áhe world -- >> rose: if this uh uh think terrorimv%m how, how much stronger will it be then? >> it is an interesting question. it is becoming a much more potent threat. the question will be willñr the countr1e;
12:34 pm
much more potent threat potentially for,ñr if the americans are showing that theyçó are not going to beñrñi the regional sheriff -- [multiple parties speaking at the same time). >> i am worried in the region even when you have someone like sissy in egypt stand up for his own domestic region there is a problem in islam and we can't allow these=/% clerics to go out >> because of theiñi muslim brotherd saudis or the kuwaitis stand up and say that's right. we have to really crack down on this because we have people that are powerful in our own countries that are actually facilitating the transfer of money, facilitating the id logical call, that is motivating these people. if they are not willing to do that and theñi terrorists primarily are threatening them. you have a really hard argument in the unitedñi telling the american candidate and the american people you are asking for the vote this is what you should do. the thinkñi thing that really excites me is that 2016 is going to be much more of a foreign policy -- >> rose: of course it is. and i certainly hope we have
12:35 pm
more intelligence than we have heard so par. >> we need to have thisñi debate and cannot repeat the 2012 foreign policy debate between obamañr and romney. with we deserve better than that. and, you know, i think that the average american right now understands they actually are going to pay attention to these issues as they thinkñr about 2016. >> rose: well they should do that. think about this book, three choices for united states. ian bremer who is passionate and obsessed by foreign policy. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you. back in a moment, stay with us.ñm/ >> >> barbara comstock a virginia republic michigan the democrat are new members of the house of representatives. but they are hardly political neofights, dingell has been a huge playerñr inñiñr michigan democraticçó politics for decale+. she succeeded husband, john dingell, theñi longest servingñiñr congressman in her americanñixdñi been añi high level capitol hill
12:36 pm
staffer, a skilled political operativeñi and a memburm= virginia stateñiñxi legislature. >> they are both tough partisans who areóçó politician whose like toñi we wantñr to askññrñi÷dñiñrçó them, does gender washington'sñi polarizedñjrñi>ok environment? and in jeb isññi natural for women legislp we are pleased to welcome you bothçóñi here.ñr gentlelady from the 12th district of michigan and from the tenth district ofñi virginia thank you forú let me startñi off, does gender make a and legislativeñi s >> i would say yes because i think women come to it fromñr a different perspective. i think f ballsaa and iñi think asñi youñi see more wom legislative process, you see people trying toñr,$nd solutions to problems.ñbp &c @&c >>ñi yes. i wouldñi agree, because it is all about having a lotñi of different life experiences and womenñi naturally have someñr different experiences, that theyçó bring to theñrñi table and, youñi know,i3
12:37 pm
whether -- how they are dealing with children but also, you1@/9=]1ñ concerns about how to work you know, when you get your work done. i worked onçóñi tele work as a staffer and añiñiçó statei] legislature and two with my daughterñi having her ownñi baby, içóñi am kind of looking at that withçóñi a legislative eye. you know, how doñr easier for people to do what they areñi doing, you know, maybe keep a little bit more of their own resop those but i think allñiw3 issues are womenñi issues. womenñiñi issues, i think we agree on economic things and sort of the number o dealing with all the time. >> let me ask you this. this will seem like a non sequitur i i know you both and very fond of both of you, you are smart and generous and tough and i say that as a compliment but there is a perception, at least among some that which are good at soft power, education childcare, but not as good as for lack of a better term hard power, the military, law
12:38 pm
enforcement,? >> i would say it is member trying to be in their -- i hate to use the word chauvinistic but i will, for decades it, in the workforce women issues, why does everybody try to pigeonhole us into one issue. to me economic development economy, the healthcare, not from a single i can issue perspective but a, a broad pers"ective, every issueñi that somebody cares about out there is añr woman's [sque and people try toñiñr pigeonhole women but it is absolutely not the case and you mó starting to see solutions as you see womençó come in to more, get more legislators in there and you start seeing them talk about all ofçó these differentñr problems. >> barbara? >> i would agr!ña onñi national security issues where, youçó know, i worked atñrñr the justice departmentñi postñkó 9/14÷úb?c @&c thatñi were working withñr us ref reday, we hadxd them over at the fbi, or, you know theñqr people aresg ,m'e engagedñ onñi these issues and iñr have women identifyxdñi
12:39 pm
that as anñi issue when you areñ'i talking just, you know, not prompting a particular thingbund saying what concernsñi you? i certainly heard last year as weñi saw the riseñr of isis women sometimes are the first ones to raise a concern. what are we doing about it? how3 know,ñi if i am hearing about something in my district like in my district, we we had añr 17-year-old young man who was on the internet recruitin forñi isis who got over the syriañi and there was an arrest inñi the district.xd women identified that problem and say okay what is going on there that i may notñr know about what is going on inám0d community and whatçó can i do, and how can i take action? because that nationalñr security security in on veryz< veryñrñiñr instinctually. >> protect the kids protect theñiñre-5 >>ñi how much has it changed from say 20 yearsñiñrñrñiatj we a less sexist politicb÷ñr society? is it >> you know whençóxdñ9=>?só -- i would
12:40 pm
still broader than i woulhúsr)q to see it. when i looked at running for the qeocte, i thinkçó i felt it more than -- and by the way women supporting women isn'tñiñiñi always -- you know, it4m#y instinctive we think thatçó women start women as an aside i think it hasñi gotten a loxrñr better.ñr one of the challenges for women candidates is raising money. and it is the whole networking and networking with thoseñr that have theñi dollars. that is anoth areçó at more4 theçóñr congress. i am someone whoñr ysrñi veryñiñjrñ committed to, i know barbarañi is too, women helping women, soñ!óñi that we get that networking along, and try toçóñ;continue toñi grow. i am where i am because the women that went before me and helpehrñr open theñr door, we have got a res! opening thoseñr doorsñr broad barbara? and do you still feel you suffer some slight because of gender? >> well, you know i started in young women's leadership program
12:41 pm
because ixd realized, i really was inspired by cherylñis0 book lean in, becausfrñr iñ realize what she talks about sometimes womençó holdçó themselves back and i know in my case i even though i always worked in politics and had been a staffer, senior counsel, i never thoughtñrñrñii] mzc was a man, mys7 predecessor that says why emn't you run for the statehouse and really pushed me$%%5 house in who wasñiçó a great advocate for, again, saying you have to runñi and doing it he supported me, when the seatñrñiçóñúó opened up for congress, so iñr realized that i often hadn't been saying to other women you should do this. >> debbie, you are the cochair of something called lead, i believe, which is trying to get more women elected to congress as you said, you are up to over, i think it is 101 members now. >> i am sorry -- >> right right. and a pretty big increase still it is only 20 percent of the -- >> correct. >>çó --]iñçó congress whravmentñiiçóçzo
12:42 pm
the hurls as you -- >> well, yo biggest one is probably money. but, you know in my own casee actually say when i lok the senate, the menñr were -- thereçóñr were, they."ñ2?ki they were tremendously leadersñki that wanted me to run but e made a decision hot to runñi because as al knows and some may not know out there my husbandi is older than i am and i was concerned he might haveçó health issues at some point during the campaign, and people come up to me and say why didn't you call me? and i said because i never got beyond making a personal decision and for me, i think women still are the caregivers in the family and the family does matter. so i think that becomes an issue for many too and now more women are in the workforce out of sheer economic necessity.ñiçóñr and sometimesñi they don't have the luxury of taking time off from work for the number ofçó months it takes to be an effective candidate. >> you arexd both very active members of congress herrera knows the schedule, just trying to get you together was añi challenge,ñi but do the women
12:43 pm
members of the house, as women members of the senate do spend time together across the party line. >> the freshmen women get together. i know when iñiçó was running cathy -- theñi senior woman in the house now, our conference chair she was good about bringing the women candidates together and getting all of the support of the women members. i was fortunate in my primary you know, even before i had the nomination, to have all of the women members the current republican members of congress, came on board early and were very supportive. >> helped win a lot of friends. >> are you making my difference when i say across party lines it has been a poisonous environment in washington for some time. and i don't think just elected 81 women to the house is going to change that overnight. that is unrealistic but is it beginning to make any kind of difference? can you see that you are reaching more for common ground thaib than -- >> i think we are trying to create friendships. we don't get together as much i talk to barbara about this, the way the
12:44 pm
senators do and i have talked to barbara mckoff ski about how the house and senate members republican and democratic should get to know each other, the women. we need to do it more, because when -- i am somebody that develops relationships, you know i organized bipartisan retreats and did my master thesis years ago on this subject and i think if people get to know each other it is harder to demonize and i think the women tend to understand the importance of those relationships better and that we have got to keep consciously working to develop relationship so people will trust each other the and try to come together to find solutions. >> why do you, the both of you, why do you think that women sometimes are more natural or find it easier to find common ground? >> well i think we are problem solvers. i think that we are people that are used to have to having, you know, a lot of balls in the air, i think we have to find answers. i think we are thrust into situations where, you know you just can't draw strong lines in the sand. i think we have to solve problems and i think that is what we tend to n
12:45 pm
problems. >> iñi think we try to look -- >>ñi i thinkñi thq of this in congress in wanting to get thingsñr ds. w@i worked on human trafficking driven a lotñiñr by womeóñiñrçóñi ghoat theñr=)ñ hous that resolved. >> give mfr anñi example. do you have other examples of that? >> well, the what we were just talking about, i think the 21stcentury cures we were talkingçó about, it is a a bill up,çvhat chairman ofçóñr energyñi andçóñiñ+wrñiñii]ñ&rñiçó coloerce and they are both workingr together onñrñiñi that and allñi ofñi us dise know, brain tumor research,ñ the process, it isñr just the beginning gauze, beginning because i think it is añi bill weñik change how we are getting cures faster to market, managing diseases better, but we want to)3 then start thatñi discussion, fdañi healthcare be modernized, b0i
12:46 pm
2,021stçóçs centuryñiçó because smartñr phones we can use technology to help us with healthcare too, to diagnose earlier to manage disease and ultimately to cure it. i think that isñr an area i am passionate about workingñi on,ñrnúp) seeing that in our lives, and inñiñr our families,ñiñi as andñiñi friends, you know these f those8 diagnoses and it is personal up close, you know, it is the women who are dealing with it, and we problems. >> long-term care ask one of >> i mean i realized how boneñiçó the system was the affordableçó care ict did nothing to addressñrñrñi it an as barbara said. >> you were supportive of theñi affordable care act. >> i am supportive, don't get me wrong, barbara sees it different, but the republicans don't want to seeñiñr repealñr because 90 percent of what is in there, they don't want toñiñh( insurance bdaauseñi ofñiçó preexistingñr#1 etçóñrñiñrññi cetera.ñ but i hav
12:47 pm
onñi both sides ofçóñheñi aisle abou;i most people i know and i have until i took jongñ+wr john toñr the doctorñiñiñir of theñifáñiñiñiokñ%i population thatñiñiñr needs has hearingçó8 hearingñppr"çózaxen't getting c it kn does to someone that is growing older and how that's hates them causes earlierñr dementia et cetera. but the longer -- we are a society, likeu are young and still havexd a lot o not goingñiçó away, it is spouses and zaá% with it. ;nñiñi we did pass ths+ñi yearñiçó and im7 know, you know,, we wereñr both on board with it is the able act which has been for years trying to get theñiñrçóñiçó disabilities community advocated for it and 29 accounts butñi forñiñi disabled children and adults to be ableñi to use those accounts for purchasing, assistiveñiñ
12:48 pm
for healthcare andñi transportation for all of the kind of extraçó needs, that families with children with special need or disabilitiesçóçóñi have. so even though we doñi disagree on -- we do disagree on obamacare, but there are lots of different pieces there that we can agree on, and you know,, we move forward on the able act, something like the medical device tax specifically we have a et bipartisan majority that wants to get rid of that piece of it. so, youçó know, because we want toçóñi¿:qá"t)rp+eeçóñor medical deviceñr innovation andñr be able to make sure thatñrñrñ- the 21st century cures and has medicalçó innovation w benefitçó from new technology. >> still calls itñiçó obamacare. >> affordable care act. >> but, you know, the goal is the same, we want to cure things. >> let me tell you, let me bring up another issue i think bothñiçó you probably both care about a transportation,ñii being from the virginia suburb being from
12:49 pm
michigan it is an issue that really, really matters but congress the house seems totally paralyzed right now highway trust funds are going to expire at the end of may everyone says r something but nothing is being done. i mean, can you all find commonñi ground here? >> well,ñr there has been a littleñiñi bit more discussion about a we may have a democrat prayer patch now, and it is geared towards a longer term plan, i thinkçó we probably both signed the letter, which was like a six-year long-term plan, because weñi notice callie that s'more responsible way when you know whether it is your defense budget, whether it is your transportation budget, when you can long-term plan, that is, you get better deals you get, you know, continuity of your projects and it is not that stop and start which end up being more expense if -- expensive. so i think again, the ways and means committee is looking for some ways to find some money transportation is, we are having some meetings coming up so we are cautiously optimistic. >> i think we have toñyr look at the whole way we are funding our roads. most people don't focus on the
12:50 pm
fact that it may be a flawed system now because the reality is people are, because cars are more fuel efficient people the amount of money going into the highway trust fund is far less than it used to be. and i do he that there, it doesn't matter what part he you are, when you are home people are screaming about the condition of the road. and bridges and infrastructure and it is a competitive issue for us as a country. so i think there is recognition in both parties that we have to do something and the question is how are we going to do get there? >> we are one of the few major countries in the world that never have had a woman leader. the record as you look around, there have been a lot of very impressive women leaders, angela merkel of germany being one now but the record has been micked, argentina. >> margaret thatcher. >> and argentina, leaves a little bit to be desired, do you think we are going to -- now, my guess is that debbie going gehl.ñiñiñrçóñiñiñrçójgnçóñiñyóñiñiçóñrñiñi=+kwyr=/%ñiñrñiñiçóñrñrñi
12:51 pm
12:52 pm
we have a women as a leader, so youñiñi always have to find opportunities for that, but i think, you know, say the other day and you know this in the media, you see fewer and fewer women this the media. we had the sunday shows open up and i was surprisedçuiñiñr to see once more a guy got in that role and i thought there was some pretty good opportunities for women and i was surprised howçóñ moved to a man, i think we seeçó iñi think that is what sandberg talks about for women to get out there, highlight that, because sometimes it is the law you have to ask for the law toñroh enforced and we who are in the roles of authority should , you
12:53 pm
know, make that an issue ourselves. >> women television anchors. debbie let me ask you, when you -- you and barbara disagree on a lot of issues. are you less disagreeable than a lot of men have been? we talked about that poisonous environment in washington. >> i mean -- >> there is a difference the gender not just talking about -- >> regional and trade we might -- we come from different parts of the country. >> i amalking about this poisonous environment it used to be people disagreed and your husband disagreed with some very conservative republicans, but they had a very civil relationship or are women helping to restively lies the institution i guess is what i am asking? >> we are both mitted to trying to do that and i think that women tends to -- the women that we are serving would want to do that but i also think there are men out there who also want to do it and i think as you see hora women, you may see more of that approach, but i don't want
12:54 pm
toñiñ/ñttjjájuz mençó out there either. i think a lot of people on our side,ñi both sides,ñiñr both sidese1 both genders people are tired of the fighting and our class i think really was united and it has to stop. >> and i found in our conference often, the other men will say well if we do we do don't stand up in conference, if we don't talk somebody will say, could we hear from some of the women in the conference, what they think about -- >> and it is it is not necessarily -- they will want to know,, you know, we want to hear the voices. so, you know, we have to make sure we are stepping up. >> well, we certainly enjoyed hearing your voices. thank you so much for being with us. >> for more aboutñr this program and early episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. >>ñi captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
12:55 pm
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had but what i had was great. >> it almost felt like country club food to me. >> don't touch. it's hot! >> i gotta tell you, you people are getting me all e

20 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on